About your Search

20121112
20121120
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3
said about this. he's a very respected figure, a former counsel to the pentagon, a former assistant attorney general. and he said, basically, assuming the news reports are right, the fbi might have had a duty to report its month-along investigation, related to security breaches, concerning the cia director, quite a while ago. the fbi investigation might have been primarily a law enforcement matter, until very recently, and thus not subject to reporting requirements. though it seems like any investigation into security breaches of the cia director's computer system or communications by definition implicates counterintelligence. david, i want to go back to you. you're speaking about how it goes up the chain of command within the intelligence bureaus. but a separate question, under the law, if we're serious about the law, and the fbi is supposed to be, there's a separate question over, as soon as this moves from being a criminal harassment investigation to an intelligence one, whether senator feinstein and others, as they've said, should have been informed. >> well, i think, clearly, t
or parallel gram which moves you on to a love pentagon. i don't think there's any way of knowing what would have been brought by that original tip. it's bringing down some pretty lofty careers. >> what do you think about the tension between the fbi and cia? this would seem to expose some sort of -- i mean we know they're often -- agencies are often in competition with one another or there's tension. this would seem to be exemplary of that, given the fact that the fbi was investigating the head of the cia and some question whether that was appropriate, who knew what, where, when and how? >> it doesn't appear that the fbi attempted to use any of this information as leverage against the cia, which is what you would be concerned about domestic and international spy agencies learning information about each other and using it to leverage each other, to, you know, to create more or less power within the government. they've now toppled the cia director. one thing we should remember in this discussion and, you know, you're reading that opinion piece before, the reason david petraeus doesn't have a j
in his cabinet, before bob gates in the pentagon for the better part of the first term. i think he wants to do that again. his instinct towards not necessarily to hagel, although i think he is under consideration for one of the jobs, but it's a good time for the reboot and i think we're going to see that happen. >> it's a complicated reboot, right? we knew that clinton was leaving, geithner wants to go, we heard panetta, those were gives. as tom friedman says -- the whole middle east erupts in one giant sound and light show of civil wars, states collapsing and refugee dislocations as the keystone of the region syria gets pulled under and the disorder across the neighborhood and you were worried about the fiscal cliff. >> governor? >> i think john is right about the personnel changes. this is the time. every administration goes through it. if you're re-elected you're going to have this turnover and this is the best time for it. we didn't want it before the election. john is right you don't want it five months down the road when your second term is under way. i want to terry a bit too, if
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3